Abuse of preventive detention laws in Tamil Nadu has reached Orwellian proportions: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Monday called for steps to address the fact that Tamil Nadu had been topping the list of states with the highest number of people detained and imprisoned under preventive detention laws for a decade [Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home]. .A Bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Anand Venkatesh of the Madurai Bench warned the State government that it would impose costs on it for every case of wrongful detention that it comes across. On the issue of habeas corpus petitions filed to contest such cases of preventive detention, the Bench noted in its order,"It is our common experience on Bench handling habeas corpus matters that scores of habeas corpus petitions are filed every day before the Principal seat as well the Madurai Bench, challenging the orders of detention passed under Act 14 of 1982. These petitions are admitted and are taken up after about 4-6 six months, owing to the existing backlog of cases, and are inevitably allowed directing the release of the detenues.".The judgment begins with an account on how the Court was given a "wake-up call", with the judges wondering how the numbers got so out of hand."Of all the things a system should fear, Complacency heads the list. The case on hand gave us a wake-up call and made us question ourselves as to whether we have become complacent and conditioned while dealing with preventive detention cases. Having got that call from within, we decided to shake up and wriggle out of the complacency and do a reality check.".The Court went through the statistics provided on the website of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and the Prison Statistics India Report to note that from 2010 to 2021, Tamil Nadu had been recording the highest number of detentions under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Act).As per such data, last year, Tamil Nadu reported 1,775 detenues under the Act, which accounted for 51.2 percent of the total preventive detention cases across the country.The states of Telangana, which accounted for 11.4 percent of such cases, and Gujarat, with 10.7 percent of such cases, were second and third highest on the list..The Court noted that over the last ten years, the State has continued to report the highest number of preventive detention cases, with the numbers increasing every year. In 2010, 523 people were detained under the Act. In 2020 and 2021, 1,430 and 1,775 such cases were recorded respectively. "The inferences drawn can be twofold: either the State is inching towards lawlessness or that the jurisdiction of suspicion has now become a convenient and potent weapon in the hands of the law enforcing agencies to indiscriminately detain people by a conscious abuse of its statutory powers. It is, therefore, clear to us that the spectre of gross abuse of preventive detention laws hangs over the State and has reached Orwellian proportions," the Court said in its order.It went on to highlight that out of 517 cases challenging detention under the Goondas Act, the Court did not uphold such detention in a single case..These observations were made in the hearing of two habeas corpus pleas challenging detention orders passed by district authorities in June and September this year. In the present cases, the Court noted that one of the detenues had been booked under the Goondas Act for protesting against land acquisition by the State, and the other had slapped a police constable.The Court said that neither of the cases were fit to be considered as those with a potential to disturb public order, and directed that both detenues be released from prison..The judges lamented the fact that persistent judicial appeals to the authorities continue to fall on deaf ears. In order to ensure that the rule of law is not reduced to a charade, it directed that "in cases where the detention is found to be illegal, cost will be imposed against the State in each case." .Advocates Henri Tiphagne and K Dinesh appeared for the petitioners.Additional Public Prosecutor A Thiruvadi Kumar represented the respondents..[Read judgment]